Justice is Dimming for America : Social Elites Take Power

William O Douglas - SC Justice

Here is a message, actually a warning, from one of those that founded this great nation about the nightmare that is coming to our beautiful country, progressive socialism. The worst part is so many of us do not see this coming. They actually are willing to accept dependence as the new norm! What in the world are these people thinking when they voted for more Mr Obama who believes freedom is not a good thing.

 

Medicaid Spending Plan in WV Reduces Time and Money

I believe this idea has been floating around for some time, including in these pages, but what's good about it, it's in practice in West Virginia and it works. Other state can just copy what they did for their states and then tweak it when the results of the implementation comes in.

I believe we have discussed this in the near past but it sure needs to get all the attention it can as the ACA isn't going to be a fix for our health care system now or in the future.

Medicaid Reforms and Emergency Room Visits
Source: Tami Gurley-Calvez, "Medicaid Reforms and Emergency Room Visits: Evidence from West Virginia's Medicaid Redesign," Mercatus Center, December 18, 2012.
January 10, 2013

Many federal and state governments are under pressure to limit Medicaid spending without compromising quality of care. Without some reform, Medicaid will continue down an unsustainable path, says researcher Tami Gurley-Calvez.

• Total Medicaid spending increased 118 percent from 1995 to 2005.
• The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates another 115 percent increase in federal spending from 2011 to 2021.
• States have a particularly large burden, spending an additional 32 percent of the federal total on average.

While many governments continue to explore viable options, West Virginia has created a unique policy that reduces spending and improves health and quality of care. West Virginia's Medicaid redesign, Mountain Health Choices (MHC), aims at increasing personal responsibility and preventative care as a means of cutting costs.

• A major goal in this redesign was to limit the number of emergency room visits for non-emergency related needs.
• In the redesign, women and child members were either enrolled in an enhanced plan, in which they agreed to certain program rules and received more comprehensive benefits, or a basic option with fewer rules and less coverage than the previous Medicaid design.
• For the enhanced plan, members had to sign an agreement that they would be responsible for their health and stick to a health-improvement plan in an effort to prevent costly health problems.
• However, only 14 percent of people chose to be in the enhanced plan.

Under West Virginia's reforms, there were less frequent visits to the emergency room among people that enrolled in the enhanced plan.

However, for people in the basic plan, the number of emergency room visits increased. This is most likely because those in the basic plan were offered fewer services. For example, there were reductions in coverage for health services, prescriptions, mental health and chemical-dependency services than the previous Medicaid design.

If individuals are more involved with their health and are in constant contact with their health providers, there is potential to reduce overall health costs. Other states should look to West Virginia as a model and increase involvement between an individual and their health provider.

Gun Control crisis Ruse for Lack of Real Solutions

As usual, Sowell does a great job of cutting through the clutter of progressive dogma on gun violence. As an added little tid bit on guns for discussion, did you ever wonder why, with so many guns on display, that no one is ever killed at a gun show? 

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns?
Thomas Sowell

The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.
There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm's clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets but New York state's recent gun control law specifies seven. Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting -- even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun.

This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.

Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.

These plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.

We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don't know -- and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don't have the facts.

Consumers Decide On Health Care Interests Works

Market forces will always do a better job of allocation resources then any government agency or department. The problem is when the government has an agenda that demands everyone must become obedient to it's forces. Citizens must give up personal freedom, liberty and embrace dependency.

When the consumers believe that the services that they are receiving are not in their best interest, they will take action, that is, if they have opportunity to do so.

How Consumer-Directed Plans Affect the Cost and Use of Health Care

January 8, 2013

Consumer-directed health plans seem to be a viable solution to curb rising health care costs. These health plans combine a high deductible with a tax-advantaged health account whose funds roll over from year to year, says the RAND Corporation.

In exchange for higher deductibles, the costs of premiums are lowered. The hope is that making consumers more responsible for their health will encourage them to shop around and find the best plan.

Critics contend that consumers won't know how best to lower health related costs without reducing the quality of care. However, empirical analysis suggests that people with consumer-driven health plans are able to achieve cuts in health spending while retaining quality care.

• In 2011, about 17 percent of Americans that were covered by their employers were enrolled in a consumer-directed health plan.
• Families that switched to a consumer-directed health plan spent an average of 21 percent less on health care.
• Two-thirds of savings came from the fact that there were fewer episodes of care; the other one-third came from less spending per episode.
• If enrollment in consumer-directed plans increased to 50 percent, there would be an annual savings of $57 billion.

Enrollees in these health plans used less expensive goods and services, like fewer visits to specialists or using fewer brand-name drugs. Furthermore, these enrollees cut back on high-value preventive care, despite the fact that most preventative testing is fully covered by consumer-directed health plans.

It should be noted that the study used to illustrate the reductions in health costs as a result of switching to consumer-directed health plans only looks at the first year effects of such a switch. It is possible that over the long term there are more reductions in health costs. It is also possible that the reduction in preventative testing could create costly problems later.

Source: "Skin in the Game: How Consumer-Directed Plans Affect the Cost and Use of Health Care," RAND Corporation, 2012.

Progressives Attack Business : Business Pushes Back

Right now, we can only assume what small businesses will do to save themselves, but you can bet they will decide that the progressive assault on them will be met with common sense and good business decisions. 

Businesses will stop expanding and lay off unnecessary personal. 

Companies Prepare for Health Law

Source: "Companies Prepare for Health Law," Wall Street Journal, January 1, 2012.

January 7, 2013

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) seeks to reshape the health care industry to provide care for all. However, this comes at significant costs to individuals and several companies. A particular major provision that will take effect next year is likely to hurt companies around the country, says the Wall Street Journal.

• By January 1, 2014, employers with 50 or more workers will have to pay penalties if they don't cover full-time employees.
• The penalties can range from $2,000 to $3,000 per uninsured employee.
• However, some companies are willing to pay the penalty because of how expensive it would be to cover every full-time employee.

The law will impact small businesses disproportionately since most major companies already offer their employees rich benefits that include health insurance. Small companies, or ones that are trying to grow, have little room to spend on lavish benefits for their employees. Many of the benefits they may already offer could be deemed inadequate by the new law.

As a result, many employers are looking to cut the amount of hours an employee works so he or she is not considered full-time.  Others may end up offering only high-deductible plans or giving workers a set sum of money and allowing them to choose a plan. This way, if they want pricier coverage they can pay for it.

Some employers may end up pushing workers to enter in the health exchanges that the ACA establishes. This is an option available to lower-wage workers that qualify for federal subsidies and find that the exchanges are a better deal than what the employer offers.

However, it is yet to be determined whether this act of prodding some workers toward health exchanges will have barriers. Regulatory agencies may create nondiscrimination standards that prevent employers from taking this sort of action.

On top of the costs, employers will also have to consider the impact on employee morale and recruitment, as well as its public image, if it is to try and trim its health care costs. Operational burdens will also require significant time and resources to ensure that a company is following all the rules and doing all the correct paperwork.

Making Guns Illegal Will Help? : Making Meth Illegal - ?

What a great poster for all of us to understand the meaning - common sense on display.

Health Care Spending Slows While Mandates Grow

I find this interesting in that as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) really comes on strong in 2014, people will spent less and less on health care given the federal government will be picking up the tab, oh wait, that is the taxpayers will be paying the bills.

That the states are running out of money for Medicare is going to have a huge impact on the system as a whole. And with doctors retiring and leaving the system, states opting out of the federal exchanges, just adds to the corruption of the entire health system.

Is this a problem, not really as it's all about controlling the system to further the progressive agenda of complete dependence of the population on the government. That the government is broke isn't important as that effects the citizens not the Washington elites. They will always have access to enough tax dollars to support their personal life styles.

But don't complain, a majority of the population voted for this. Go figure!

U.S. Health Care Spending Growth Continues at Slow Pace

Source: Thomas Miller and Catherine Griffin, "U.S. National Health Care Spending Continues Trend of Slow Growth," American Enterprise Institute, January 9, 2013.

January 21, 2013

According to the latest article on health spending by the actuarial team at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), U.S. health spending is increasing at a slow and steady rate, say Thomas Miller and Catherine Griffin of the American Enterprise Institute.

• Compared with long term trends of substantial growth, health spending increased at an annual rate of 3.9 percent in 2011.
• The year 2010 marked the lowest rate of annualized personal expenditures on health care since the National Health Expenditure Accounts statistics were first calculated in 1960.
• Growth in Medicaid spending also grew slowly due to the overall economy, reduced federal funding and shrinking state budgets.

One trend that has remained steady throughout the economic downturn is a decrease in the share of out-of-pocket spending relative to national health spending as a whole. For more than 50 years, with only a couple of exceptions, this percentage has dropped nearly 10 percent. The CMS predicts that out-of-pocket spending will continue to fall as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is implemented, reaching a low of 9.4 percent by 2021.

Miller and Griffin say that in the future, increasing demand for Medicaid coverage under the ACA will result in a decrease in coverage as available funds run dry. They wonder if the nation's health care providers will be able to meet the increasing demand for subsidized care that pays lower rates when the major mandates of the ACA begin in 2014.

• Slow growth rates in health spending can likely be attributed to an anemic economic recovery.
• Increases in taxes, deficits, spending and regulation are unlikely to aid an already struggling health care system.
• Supporting job growth, encouraging private health coverage, rewarding capital formation and increasing the payoffs for risky innovations might encourage spending and ease pressure on America's health infrastructure.

Mandate Reform, Not Likely : Economic Failure, Likely

The choice is, do we want a future or is dependence a viable alternative. The biggest problem is there won't be any money to pay 60% of the population on all the mandates. 

Who will pay for all this? How will they pay for all of this as the number of unemployed will grow and so fewer taxes coming into the government to pay the bills.

But who cares? Just borrow the money until we can't borrow anymore then watch the entire system collapse leaving millions with a dime. Believe, the progressive socialist agenda wants exactly this outcome. Once the population is totally out of options for survival, here comes the Washington elite progressives liberal Democrats with the manacles.

Again, who voted for this to continue and, who in their right mind, could believe there is no end to the 'free' money? Are they the low information voter or are they just ignorant to how the financial system actually works and how it will ultimately fail if we do nothing?

A Winning Plan for Entitlement Reform

Source: Peter Ferrara, "A Winning Plan for Entitlement Reform," Heartland Institute, December 2012.

January 8, 2013

The growth of government spending will have serious economic implications unless something is done about it. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), spending is likely to soar under the current course, says Peter Ferrara, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis and the Heartland Institute.

• In President Obama's first year, spending increased to 25 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP), after being stabilized at 20 percent since World War II.
• By 2027, federal spending will comprise 30 percent of the GDP.
• That number will increase to 40 percent by 2040 and then to 80 percent by 2080.

The expansion of federal spending is due to the long-term expansion in our nation's entitlement programs. The way entitlement programs are currently set up create perverse incentives that encourage behavior such as not working and making a living off collecting government paychecks. For example:

• The welfare system discourages getting married because having a working husband disqualifies a woman for welfare assistance.
• Furthermore, the current welfare system provides assistance for bearing children out of wedlock.
• As a result, these programs discourage people from being productive and instead become dependent on government resources.

Social Security, Medicare and the current health care system discourage many from saving for retirement or health care and the ensuing gains from any investments because the government provides free income and free health care without saving. Furthermore, because of the government's intrusion in the health care market, there is little room for competition to drive down the high costs for medical services.

Ferrara outlines reforms to entitlement programs in a series of papers that focus on providing smart government services without intrusion. Instead, the reforms are based on the concept of individual choice and rooted in free market ideas that have been proven in cases around the world. These reforms could save close to $2 trillion every year in terms of today's budget.

Mandates Grow Faster Then National Debt?

With more then 50% of the population now on the federal tit, does it still make sense that common sense will prevail for mandate reform? Guess who reelected Mr Obama and one has to believe at the end of another 4 years the number of individuals on some federal mandate will much higher and guess how all these citizens will vote in 2014?

Who Knew? Why would all these old and new recipients vote to get less money, especially when unemployment will likely be much higher and the cost of just about everything will higher, like food and energy.

Just imagine 60% of the entire population waiting each month for 'free' money, money we are borrowing from the Chinese. Yikes!!

A Bipartisan Nation of Beneficiaries

Source: Rich Morin, Paul Taylor and Eileen Patten, "A Bipartisan Nation of Beneficiaries," Pew Research Center, December 18, 2012.

January 7, 2013

As the nation continues to debate the merits of federal entitlement spending, a new national survey finds surprising facts about the distribution of this spending. Nearly 55 percent of Americans have received government benefits from one of the six best-known entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Unemployment Insurance), say Rich Morin, Paul Taylor and Eileen Patten of the Pew Research Center.

Even more interesting is the breakdown of people that have received benefits. According to a telephone survey that took a nationally representative sample of 2,511 adults:

• Sixty percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans have benefitted from a major entitlement program at some point in their lives.
• Women are more likely than men to have received an entitlement benefit by 12 percent.
• Blacks are more likely than whites to have received federal help from these programs by 8 percent.
• Moreover, 16 percent of people that have not received benefits say that a member in their household has gotten help.

The most utilized programs are unemployment benefits and Social Security. Nearly 27 percent of adults have received unemployment assistance, while about 26 percent have received Social Security.

It should be noted that age is also a large factor in whether someone has received some sort of financial assistance. This is not surprising considering that over the course of a lifetime there are more opportunities to receive benefits and once older people reach retirement age they qualify for Social Security and Medicaid.

• Ninety-seven percent of adults age 65 and older have received an entitlement benefit over the course of their lives.
• Only 33 percent of those under the age of 30 have received some sort of benefit.
• Eighty-eight percent of older adults have received Social Security and 78 percent have received Medicare benefits.

Sustainable Debt Now : Catastrophic Results Later

This author believes that no matter how much we spend, the country, and economy, will be able to sustain any debt that comes into play for the near future. The only problem is when we arrive at the end of all this new spending of money we don't have, can we recover from this or will this country be forever changed.

You decide. By the way, who voted for the demise of our future and the future of our kids? Worse maybe, why?

Trillion-Dollar Deficits Are Sustainable for Now, UnfortunatelySource: John H. Makin, "Trillion-Dollar Deficits Are Sustainable for Now, Unfortunately," American Enterprise Institute, December 13, 2012.

January 4, 2013

The argument that Congress must quickly act to reign in debt and deficit spending is potent because everyone wants to avoid the debt crisis that countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal have experienced, says John H. Makin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

However, even with a trillion-dollar budget deficit, it is unlikely that the United States will experience a debt crisis similar to what other countries did.

• The federal government is able to finance its deficit because of low interest rates of half a percent or less.
• The debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP) metric used to gauge the sustainability of deficits is flawed.
• For example, Spain and the United States have nearly identical debt-to-GDP ratios of about 80 percent.
• However, Spain experienced a fiscal crisis that drove interest rates on its 10-year bonds to over 7 percent.

In many of the European countries that face a debt crisis, other factors combined to increase interest costs despite a relatively low debt-to-GDP ratio.

• Spain, for instance, borrowed at low interest rates while experiencing fast growth after its entry to the Eurozone.
• This drove up debt but growth still remained high relative to GDP.
• However, after the 2008 crisis, when Greece revealed its poor government finances, interest rates spiked on bonds of indebted European countries, like Spain.

The United States, however, is neither like Greece nor Spain. It was because Greece failed to show the true extent of its deficit that led to austerity measures, which caused the debt-to-GDP ratio to rise.

It should be noted that the sustainability of the deficit does pose a threat to the economic well-being of the United States. For example, the Federal Reserve's monetary accommodation of debt accumulation will cause inflation to rise. In turn, this will increase borrowing costs for the government and private sector. Instead, reducing the deficit to about 3 percent of the GDP will allow the debt-to-GDP ratio to stabilize and sustainably bring down the debt.